Is it just me, or if Pakistan sent three helicopters into UK airspace, without telling us, and assassinated Tony Blair someone without trial, wouldn't we call it terrorism?
The US did not send three helicopters into Pakistani airspace and kill prime minister Yousuf Gilani, they killed a renowned and self-confessed terrorist leader, an ultra-conservative religious bigot of the very worst kind, a man who was happy to arrange the death of - and make recordings celebrating the killing of - men, woman and children, people's sisters and husbands, mother's and sons.
Is it fair to say that the US action was against international law?
Probably, so what?
Isn't it also reasonable to expect someone who is accused to be given a fair trial and due process? No coverage of this angle on the BBC, or any other mainstream media as far as I can see. Don't know why I expect anything else. Osama 'refused to surrender' but the US haven't said he was armed...
I guess the circus of a long protracted trial with Osama held for years on (possibly) American soil would have caused no end of problems, I can see why it might be better to simply kill him.
The problem with Americans is the rules only apply when it suits them, and they seem to actually believe that the world is like a Hollywood film, with only goodies or baddies, no shades of grey, you're either with us or against us.
Which is essentially what I can see in your post here, (leaving your overly simplistic xenophobia aside) the Americans are cast as the baddies, the media guilty as their enablers and anyone who stands up to the US, regardless of what they do, regardless of whether their religious zeal takes apart the torso of a much loved 6 year old daughter or pulls the head of someone's father in two, they are, by virtue of standing up against the US, at the least to be given the benefit of the doubt.
It's amazing what a strongly held disdain for America can allow into even the most liberal mind.
Which means as Londoners we are all in more danger today than we were yesterday. Thanks Yanks!
Do you think the 'war on terror' was proportionate to the actual danger from terrorism, or do you think the danger was largely fabricated for other political aims?
The US did not send three helicopters into Pakistani airspace and kill prime minister Yousuf Gilani, they killed a renowned and self-confessed terrorist leader, an ultra-conservative religious bigot of the very worst kind, a man who was happy to arrange the death of - and make recordings celebrating the killing of - men, woman and children, people's sisters and husbands, mother's and sons.
Probably, so what?
I guess the circus of a long protracted trial with Osama held for years on (possibly) American soil would have caused no end of problems, I can see why it might be better to simply kill him.
Which is essentially what I can see in your post here, (leaving your overly simplistic xenophobia aside) the Americans are cast as the baddies, the media guilty as their enablers and anyone who stands up to the US, regardless of what they do, regardless of whether their religious zeal takes apart the torso of a much loved 6 year old daughter or pulls the head of someone's father in two, they are, by virtue of standing up against the US, at the least to be given the benefit of the doubt.
It's amazing what a strongly held disdain for America can allow into even the most liberal mind.
Do you think the 'war on terror' was proportionate to the actual danger from terrorism, or do you think the danger was largely fabricated for other political aims?